Wednesday, 31 October 2012

Throughout the ages the media has
acted as both a reflector and educator of society. Centuries later, we can look
at the media of that time and make clear inferences about changing theology. Media not only reflects theology, but influences it.

Through looking at historic
representations of Christianity we can ascertain the views of the time1.
The BBC documentary ‘How the Devil Got
His Horns: A Diabolical Tale’ shows that when depicting the Devil, each artist would take inspiration
from previous artists' paintings. Throughout this documentary, Sooke
shows that the changing image of the devil reflected society's changing
attitude to the role and characteristics of the Devil from a beautiful angel that was a caretaker of sinners, to a horrific beast-like figure2. This shows that the media of the time can
reflect the theology of that time, and influence that which is to come.

Today, television provides a unique
insight not previously offered; with hundreds of channels it is easy to gain
insight to what others think and how they live. Television provides a unique
way of “making the unfamiliar familiar”3, but questions have to be raised over whether this challenges prejudice, or if it simply enhances stereotypes? It is widely stated that sitcoms hold
up a mirror to society - Susan Borowitz goes as far as to say that "the sitcom has taken the place of church, of religious training"4. If this is
the case, then it is important to understand not only what are sitcoms saying
about religion and society, but also how that influences audiences.So what are sitcoms saying about religion now? According to 'Family Guys? What Sitcoms Say About America Now', for many Americans their personal faith still has the utmost importance, however there is little concern given to those who have other faiths, as long as they have a faith5.

Recently, there was massive uproar over
the film ‘Innocence of Muslims’, an anti-Islamic film that ridiculed the
Prophet Muhammad. Described by Peter Bradshaw from the Guardian as a "bigoted piece of poison"6, the film initiated many protests, both violent and peaceful, across the globe7. This is obviously a reckless use of the media.
I think it likely that Christians would be offended by a similar
portrayal of Jesus or the Virgin Mary. Conversely, the American TV show 'Family Guy'unashamedly pokes fun at any
religion (and for that matter any race, gender, or sexual orientation)8. Naturally, some find Family Guy insulting, but itremains incredibly popular, especially in God-fearing America. Somehow, Family Guy manages to strike a humorous
and apparently appropriate balance.

The media has a strong responsibility
when it comes to religion. What content is approved for broadcast seems to depend largely on
the zeitgeist of the time. However much we can learn from the past, we must
acknowledge that society is ever changing; “We live out our faith in entirely
new environments and do our theology in a world not known before”9. As a result, theology needs to be prepared
for the changes that will inevitably come.

Friday, 26 October 2012

Anyone that has been
involved in church leadership will undoubtedly have heard the phrase “but
this is the way we have always done things”. However, in light of dwindling
church numbers, many
churches are seeking to make traditional services more appealing. Will the future of the church be found by increasing the role of personal experiences?

It is said that the three sources of theology are: scripture, reason,
and tradition. Sometimes experience is included, and this is known as the ‘Wesleyan
Quadrilateral’1. Macquarrie says that although not dominant,
experience should be viewed as preceding theology2; in other words,
it all starts with experience.

It is well reported that church attendance is decreasing3. Twinned
with a lack of young people4, it would appear that church isn't cutting it for many. Curiously, pilgrimages, potentially
highly spiritual experiences, are rising in popularity simultaneously5,6.
Although they fell into disfavour during the reformation, there is a historic
tradition of pilgrimage within Christianity. I find it interesting that less people are choosing to experience God in a traditional corporate church environment, whilst more are seeking counter-cultural personal experiences. Does declining church attendance
reflect a secularisation of society, or simply a cry for a different way of
experiencing God?

There is concern about placing too great an importance
on experience as “[theologies with an exaggerated emphasis on experience] can
easily become distorted by the particular types of experience out of which they
come”2. It is therefore important that the context of the theology is
taken into account. For this reason, a branch of theology known as contextual
theology has been developed. It has become especially popular among oppressed
groups, such as ethnic minorities and women.

Schleiermacher noted that “[Christian doctrines] always proceed
from a reflection on how the experience of one’s self-consciousness has been
changed through being in relation to the redeemer”7. Doctrine is
shaped by a transforming experience. We can see that the Bible is a collection
of individuals having encounters of the divine, and people today can have
revelations of God through reading it. However, the very act of reading the Bible
has in itself become a tradition. Essentially, experiences and tradition are
each important, but are undeniably inseparable.

It becomes clear that instead of simply challenging tradition, modern
culture seems to be seeking the experiential as a new way of meeting with God. Increasing the role of the experiential in church could increase attendance of previously under-represented groups such as men and young people. I think
the real danger is that Christians start viewing experience as the end to be desired, rather
than the means by which to have an encounter with God.
For this reason we must remember not to simply seek an experience, but
to seek the experience of God.

Wednesday, 17 October 2012

“Since you can’t take religion out of people’s lives, the only thing left is to
see whether you can interpret religions in such a way as to highlight their
potential for peace”1. Although this assertion of Miroslav Volf is
valid, it becomes clear that his further claims are neither meaningful nor
practical; therefore there is a need to consider alternative potential bases for peace.

Volf
argues that the god of Christians and Muslims is in fact the same
God - he does so on the basis that there are significant similarities
between the deities described in the Bible and the Qur’an2. The problem
with this is that similarity does not dictate unity and differences do not
indicate exclusivity. The Parable of the ‘Blind Men and the Elephant’tells the story of several blind men
touching an elephant and being unable to agree what it is.

The men argued whether the object was a wall, a tree, or a rope, until a passing wise man calmly
explained:

"All of you are right. The reason every one
of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different
part of the elephant.”3 This parable illustrates that even if accounts are different, or appear to be explaining something
different, in some circumstances they can be explaining the same thing.

Logical positivist Anthony Flew proposed that if no evidence can prove or
disprove a statement then it is not meaningful4. As the statement“Christians and Muslims worship the
same god”can be neither proven
nor disproven, by this maxim it is meaningless. The same however, can be said for all statements about God. Therefore, it
is ultimately meaningless to discuss whether the god of Christianity and Islam
is the same. Instead, we need to readdress the issue and consider alternative
ways we can identify“potential
for peace”.

Paul Tillich defines religion as‘the state of being grasped by ultimate concern’5, which means that all religions must have a system of values. A potential for peace therefore may be found in identifying similar values.

However, Volf proposes that the
only way in which Muslims and Christians would be able to have significant
overlap in ultimate values, and therefore be able to live in peace, would be if
they had“a common God”6. He goes further to say that this would be necessary topursue the common good. The purpose of
Volf’s work appears to be to aid social cohesion, however it focusses on an
exclusivist view of peace implying that you can only pursue moral virtues or
goodness if you believe in the same god. Perhaps it would be more effective if
the emphasis reverted to similar beliefs and values, rather than the
insinuation that this must indicate, or is dependent on a common belief of
deity.

Volf’s
assertions fall short on a theoretical level as they lack meaning; furthermore
they are impractical as they fail to truly unite Christians and Muslims. Ninian
Smart concluded in‘The
World’s Religions’, that “It is unlikely, then, that a real unity of
worldviews can be found, except as a minority view”7. If the
aim is greater social cohesion, surely it would be more effective to refocus on
the religions' ultimate concerns and practical ways to reconcile them.

-----------------------------------------

1 Short, 224

2 Volf,
14-15

3 Jain World

4 Morreal &
Sonn, 81

5 Chryssides,
23

6 Volf,
7-9

7 Smart,
559

-----------------------------------------

BibliographyChryssides, G. D., and Geaves, R., The
Study of Religion: An Introduction to Key Ideas and Methods, Continuum
International Publishing Group Ltd., 2007.